iMac Touch

I don't think it's aesthetically great (base could possibly be shorter and designed to look less like a grumpy face) but the concept is the main thing. The current iMac design is limited in a number of ways:

- The IO and power ports on the back means you can't move the screen a lot while peripherals are plugged in, certainly not flat for touch
- With the parts being in the screen, it makes the screen very heavy so it's not easy to move around quickly

The above concept has a number of benefits:

- It means Apple can build Mac Minis in that style and this means if you wanted to upgrade to an iMac, you buy the touch display and attach it.
- If you need to replace a damaged screen, you just detach it and ship just the screen back.
- If you need to get the base fixed, just detach it - in both cases, no more lugging heavy parts back to the Apple store.
- They can more easily offer anti-glare options.
- The packaging is smaller (top right)
- The ports would be at the back of the base so won't interfere with the movement.
- The screen would be much lighter and could be pulled down to touch-mode very quickly and also swivelled into portrait - size of the display would be 22-24" @ 1080p.
- The bezel is uniform so it works in any orientation.
- Given that it's just a Mini on the bottom, the price should be lower - the base dimension would be like drawing a circle round the current Mini and 2-3x the height. Double the height is probably enough and would allow more drives for storage in the Mini Server for extra RAID options.
- Because the display doesn't need to be opened to allow servicing computer parts, they can laminate the glass onto the panel meaning lower refraction, better touch input, less glare and lighter as they can use thinner glass.

There are a few drawbacks, which include:

- Small base means slower parts but right now, 65W parts are as fast as the current high-end i7 iMac and even the quad MBP parts are. Technology moves on so the next i7s will be even faster but direct touch input is going to be very important.
- It means some assembly when you get it but not much - ideally, the arm would lock into place with a simple mechanism.
- display movement might have to be restricted to prevent damaging the display by banging it off the desk

I changed the base to be more visually appealing and not a cone shape. This would be shaped a lot closer to the current Mini so no fancy circular motherboard and it doesn't look as much like a weird face.

It would have some flat edges so you don't see the optical slot from the side and probably not the Apple logo either.

It's flat on the top so that these can be stacked like current Minis and the cooling vents go out the back.

The arm connection point at the top can double as the wifi antenna so that it isn't blocking access to the storage from the bottom. There would be up to 4 x 2.5" drives (12.5mm support) inside so up to 4TB of space

It would use the MBP quad-core i7 and either the 6490 or 6750 GPU so same performance as the current iMac i7 but with much lower power usage (1/3 or so).

The last thing we need is for the IMac to regress performance wise. This is pretty much the implication when you make the base Mini size. IMac currently "sorta" fills the performance gap between the Mini and the Pro, as such it really needs to perform better than the next Mini. Much better in my book, because no matter what Intel or AMD offer up there is only so much performance that can be fit into a small box.

The second issue is physical. A small base like that can't counter the torgue the screen produces. The likely hood is that the base would need a heavy ballast, mist likely a cast-iron disk. This isn't bad but you are talking significant weight just to keep the monitor from falling over. You get above 20" or so and you will have mass out at the end of that arm. Which brings us to the second issue the cover needs to withstand that torgue too. In the end interior space would suffer.

In the end I dont really disagree with you as I really don't like the current iMacs approach. Something better is certainly possible. So that being the case I think you need to look at the mechanics and think about how you would make the base viable. Thus you will likely need a bigger base and more importantly a design that keeps the mass of the screen more or less centered above the base. In otherwords a design that avoids cantilevering the screen beyond the perimeter of the base. One consideration is a vertical post upon which the screen can move up and down and swing about.

I can see Apple throwing all of this away though by making a base unit that is completely independent of the screen. With Thunderbolt the screen can sit on a desk with the base unit some distance away. I could easily see iNac going away replaced with two different classes of base units. One would be todays current Mini extended with TB. The other would be a more substantial unit that supports faster hardware and more configurability. Again the connection to the screen would be TB. Such an arraingement would provide for significant design freedom around the screens. The Mini would require very little in the way of modification for a low end solution, the midrange would be new hardware and finally the high end gets taken care of by a new spin on the Mac Pro. This approach would allow Apple to kill many birds with just three stones.

The last thing we need is for the IMac to regress performance wise. IMac currently "sorta" fills the performance gap between the Mini and the Pro

The current laptop processors match the current high-end iMacs, which I think is decent enough. The people buying the 27" i7 iMac likely want a Mac Pro but can't afford it. By moving to a consumer screen size and fast mobile chips, it can mean reduced prices for the Mac Pro line again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

The second issue is physical. A small base like that can't counter the torgue the screen produces. The likely hood is that the base would need a heavy ballast, mist likely a cast-iron disk.

and the heavier PSU in the base needed to drive the screen and extra drives can help weigh it down. You're right that there will be challenges with the screen weight though, especially when moving it around and they'd need to go back to the soft rubber in the old Mini to stop it sliding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Thus you will likely need a bigger base and more importantly a design that keeps the mass of the screen more or less centered above the base. In otherwords a design that avoids cantilevering the screen beyond the perimeter of the base. One consideration is a vertical post upon which the screen can move up and down and swing about.

Keeping the mass centered is probably the best solution but for touch, I'd say it still needs to lay down very flat. The following design would allow that flexibility while keeping the screen mass directly above the base:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

I can see Apple throwing all of this away though by making a base unit that is completely independent of the screen.

That would allow even the Mac Pro to get the touch features as you pointed out but they will still have to adopt some unique display design to maintain flexibility and stability. I guess the could compromise the flexibility a bit if they went back to 16:10 displays or even 4:3.

The current laptop processors match the current high-end iMacs, which I think is decent enough. The people buying the 27" i7 iMac likely want a Mac Pro but can't afford it. By moving to a consumer screen size and fast mobile chips, it can mean reduced prices for the Mac Pro line again.

One has to remember current laptops are running Intels best tech, the iMacs and Minis are far from that. In the case of the iMac just how fast would it be with a desktop variant of SB? My guess is at least 50% faster as a desktop SB ought to hit 3GHz before speed stepping.

As an interesting aside the process shrink to 32nm could lead to a mini clock rate race. That is if AMD ever starts shipment of 32nm parts in volume.

and the heavier PSU in the base needed to drive the screen and extra drives can help weigh it down. You're right that there will be challenges with the screen weight though, especially when moving it around and they'd need to go back to the soft rubber in the old Mini to stop it sliding.

I should note that challenges can be over comed. However expensive to manufacture is another issue altogether.

Quote:

Keeping the mass centered is probably the best solution but for touch, I'd say it still needs to lay down very flat. The following design would allow that flexibility while keeping the screen mass directly above the base:

That would allow even the Mac Pro to get the touch features as you pointed out but they will still have to adopt some unique display design to maintain flexibility and stability. I guess the could compromise the flexibility a bit if they went back to 16:10 displays or even 4:3.

Frankly I'm a big fan of wide screens and often get very frustrated with the 4:3 crowd. I've owned a lot of computers over the last 30 years and frankly many monitors, one of those being a Mac Plus. To put it mildly 4:3 screens suck big time. Especially when using modern software like IDEs.

So to that end I'd prefer that Apple would stay wide screen with the iMacs. It is far more useful for most computing needs and is far more flexible for video playback.

As to that stand alone monitor coming up with a tilt mechanism that goes far enough to handle Touch will be a challenge. A drafting table (remember them) took positioning and flexibility to the extreme, I often wonder if it might not be useful to go back to something like that in say a 40" screen. The big problem is that a 40" screen needs far more pixels for use up that close. For the smaller screens there are lots of options but one big problem in Touch or horizontal mode, that is the big heavy ball of flesh using it. The screen will end up getting knocked about, leaned on and otherwise subjected to loads a normal screen wouldn't.

In the end I have serious reservations about a Touch based Mac anyways. The problem being ergonomics for a user who spends his work day at a computer.

One has to remember current laptops are running Intels best tech, the iMacs and Minis are far from that. In the case of the iMac just how fast would it be with a desktop variant of SB? My guess is at least 50% faster as a desktop SB ought to hit 3GHz before speed stepping.

The iMac would likely get the 95W i7 2600K, which scores 15,000 in Geekbench vs the MBP quad i7, which gets 11,000 so it's about 35% improvement. Even the 130W i7-970 is getting 17,000 (54% improvement).

I'd say that 35-55% improvement is not enough when the alternative could be a full touch-enabled Mac running at under 45W. Give it another couple of generations and nobody is going to mind if they get 4 cores, 8 cores or whatever. It will always come back to the user experience so Apple needs to bring some of the great touch functionality from the iPad back to the Mac system.

It seems like it might be a gimmick at first but a lot of things are so much more enjoyable and fast to do with direct input - it can be summed up in one question: can you play a virtual piano on a current iMac in any reasonable way? As soon as you reach a point where you can't do something important like make music, the design is wrong.

All that an extra 50% CPU bump will do is make raw encoding go slightly faster. If it takes 15 minutes to encode on the MBP, then 100% speedup would take 7.5 minutes so 50% speedup takes just over 11 minutes. You're not even going to notice that difference because that's in the best case.

GPUs you might notice but the 6750 is playing most games tested on maximum quality at 30FPS+. The higher resolution would slow things down a bit if you play at native resolution but 720p is fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Frankly I'm a big fan of wide screens and often get very frustrated with the 4:3 crowd. I've owned a lot of computers over the last 30 years and frankly many monitors, one of those being a Mac Plus. To put it mildly 4:3 screens suck big time. Especially when using modern software like IDEs.

I agree with you, I much prefer wide screens but that's why I feel a collapsible display won't be enough because you can't view portrait images properly on a widescreen. Even on the biggest displays, viewing portrait on a widescreen doesn't look right. Something as simple as the iPad where you flip it round to see the picture fill the display is needed and a 1080p in portrait is quite a bit higher vertical resolution than the 27" displays.

The iMac would likely get the 95W i7 2600K, which scores 15,000 in Geekbench vs the MBP quad i7, which gets 11,000 so it's about 35% improvement. Even the 130W i7-970 is getting 17,000 (54% improvement).

Even a 35% improvement can be very useful. By the way I'm not discounting the fact that the new MBP are fast, just that desktop solutions will be faster yet again.

Quote:

I'd say that 35-55% improvement is not enough when the alternative could be a full touch-enabled Mac running at under 45W. Give it another couple of generations and nobody is going to mind if they get 4 cores, 8 cores or whatever. It will always come back to the user experience so Apple needs to bring some of the great touch functionality from the iPad back to the Mac system.

I'd suspect that there are thousands that would not agree with you with respect to the 35 to 55% performance increase. I have to ask though what is it about that touch functionality that you want so see in the Mac lineup? Honestly I don't see a big draw here.

Quote:

It seems like it might be a gimmick at first but a lot of things are so much more enjoyable and fast to do with direct input - it can be summed up in one question: can you play a virtual piano on a current iMac in any reasonable way? As soon as you reach a point where you can't do something important like make music, the design is wrong.

Very true! However if an app requires direct input as you say then isn't it obvious that the Mac is the wrong platform. If you flip this over the direct input capability of the IPad makes it all but useless for some uses without a keyboard. That is a physical keyboard where one can type at. It is sort of like using a shovel when you really need a pick, selecting the right tool is important to making a job bearable.

Quote:

All that an extra 50% CPU bump will do is make raw encoding go slightly faster. If it takes 15 minutes to encode on the MBP, then 100% speedup would take 7.5 minutes so 50% speedup takes just over 11 minutes. You're not even going to notice that difference because that's in the best case.

You assume that most people are only using the hardware to speed up encodings. There are many good reasons for the hardware, be it CAD, Engineering or what have you. Sometimes you never have enough power.

Quote:

GPUs you might notice but the 6750 is playing most games tested on maximum quality at 30FPS+. The higher resolution would slow things down a bit if you play at native resolution but 720p is fine.

I suspect that GPU's will only become more important as time progresses. There will be a day where the CPU is just seen as a adjunct to the GPU.

Quote:

I agree with you, I much prefer wide screens but that's why I feel a collapsible display won't be enough because you can't view portrait images properly on a widescreen. Even on the biggest displays, viewing portrait on a widescreen doesn't look right. Something as simple as the iPad where you flip it round to see the picture fill the display is needed and a 1080p in portrait is quite a bit higher vertical resolution than the 27" displays.

Huh? Portrait images can be viewed fine on a wide screen. Lets face it no matter what the screen orientation you can't reproduce the resolution of even an average camera these days. At least not pixel to pixel. Viewing images on todays monitors is a compromise no matter what the screen size or orientation.

I remember at an Apple event over a year ago when a reporter asked Steve Jobs if the iMac was relevant anymore. I think it was a Time magazine reporter. Anyways, Steve Jobs shot back and said something to the effect "wait until you see the next iMac". Well I've been patiently waiting. I really do think Apple will re-define how we currently view desktop computing.

With all the patents related to hand-gestures we've seen in the last year from Apple that appear to be intended for a desktop (iMac) application, I would not be suprised if the rumors of a 21.5" iMac Touch are true.

Additionally, as some of the prior posts have alluded to, I would not be surprised if Apple takes a modular approach in the next iMac. Have a powerful base module that could be ordered in various configurations. Somehow, implement a flexible arm that could attach the base to the truely flat lightweight wide-screen touch display.

A modular approach would give users the flexibility/expandibility options and also allow Apple to possibly save on component costs too.

I'd suspect that there are thousands that would not agree with you with respect to the 35 to 55% performance increase. I have to ask though what is it about that touch functionality that you want so see in the Mac lineup? Honestly I don't see a big draw here.

The main thing I'd say is pictures. The interface for manipulating and sorting pictures on a touch screen is so much better than normal input. Pinch-zoom, pan, rotate, slide to the next image, switch portrait/landscape, being able to make natural strokes vs mouse movement when photoshopping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

However if an app requires direct input as you say then isn't it obvious that the Mac is the wrong platform.

Screen size makes a difference to how you use touch apps. Even a 10" screen is too small for a piano or an iMovie interface. People can of course get an iPad to supplement the desktop use but I don't see them as being separate input methods.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

There are many good reasons for the hardware, be it CAD, Engineering or what have you. Sometimes you never have enough power.

Sure but those sometimes are very few times and will get fewer as technology progresses until there's just one guy holding onto his tower for dear life with tears in his eyes as the agents come to pry it from his hands and replace it with a 32-core iPad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

I suspect that GPU's will only become more important as time progresses. There will be a day where the CPU is just seen as a adjunct to the GPU.

They will be one and the same chip though but I do think the integration between them will give the GPU a lot more to do than it does now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wizard69

Huh? Portrait images can be viewed fine on a wide screen.

Sometimes fine doesn't cut it :

The 27" isn't too bad though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by markv

With all the patents related to hand-gestures we've seen in the last year from Apple that appear to be intended for a desktop (iMac) application, I would not be suprised if the rumors of a 21.5" iMac Touch are true.

Yeah, they're up to somethin' alright. The Lion fullscreen mode is, as Phil would say 'just the beginning'. Of course, it's always just the beginning, I'd like someone to come out and say we're somewhere in the middle for a change just so we know we're making progress.

Each stage of technology, there are dots of information that come out. I think in a few years, we're going to connect those dots and it's going to be very clear what they've done. Right now, it's a bit fuzzy but even at this stage, it's clear they have a very smart strategy in place.

With all the patents related to hand-gestures we've seen in the last year from Apple that appear to be intended for a desktop (iMac) application, I would not be suprised if the rumors of a 21.5" iMac Touch are true.

Looking at what can be done with the Kinect on XBox makes me wonder what gesture technology could do for a PC interface.

I don't really like the idea of a touch interface on a PC, given I sit further back from my screen than touching distance, but I could imagine gestures for things like forward and back in a browser.

I remember at an Apple event over a year ago when a reporter asked Steve Jobs if the iMac was relevant anymore. I think it was a Time magazine reporter. Anyways, Steve Jobs shot back and said something to the effect "wait until you see the next iMac". Well I've been patiently waiting. I really do think Apple will re-define how we currently view desktop computing.

With all the patents related to hand-gestures we've seen in the last year from Apple that appear to be intended for a desktop (iMac) application, I would not be suprised if the rumors of a 21.5" iMac Touch are true.

It could be true or they could be simply protecting some R&D. I still see touch screens as a gimmick on the desktop. There are some cases where it might be beneficial but I don't think there is enough to make it a high demand feature. I still come back to the issue of ergonomics, it simply isn't practicle for somebody working at a desk.

Quote:

Additionally, as some of the prior posts have alluded to, I would not be surprised if Apple takes a modular approach in the next iMac. Have a powerful base module that could be ordered in various configurations. Somehow, implement a flexible arm that could attach the base to the truely flat lightweight wide-screen touch display.

A modular approach would give users the flexibility/expandibility options and also allow Apple to possibly save on component costs too.

One important point about a TB connected monitor, it would work equally well as a monitor for both desktop base stations and laptops. This means one monitor can work equally well for all of Apples products. I don't think TB being folded into the Mini Display Port was an accident, Apple has something up their sleeves.

A touchscreen desktop machine might appeal to some people, I don't know.

What I do know, is that I definitely wouldn't want one. I'm lazy and my arms would get tired of reaching out and constantly moving things around on a big vertical monitor and doing gestures. I think that would apply to many other people also.

One important point about a TB connected monitor, it would work equally well as a monitor for both desktop base stations and laptops. This means one monitor can work equally well for all of Apples products. I don't think TB being folded into the Mini Display Port was an accident, Apple has something up their sleeves.

I was fond of it's design. But it's boutique, space age design looks aged compared to the classy elegance of the current iMac.

Let's face it.

Apple's keeping the mini, evolving the iMac (probably into some bendy/dockable touch variant in the future...who knows..) And the Pro? Will probably stay as it is. Overpriced and with the current design. For a dinosaur tower design? As good as it gets. Bar the crap gpus and quad cores in a 2grand computer...

Lemon Bon Bon.

You know, for a company that specializes in the video-graphics market, you'd think that they would offer top-of-the-line GPUs...

Even if the new LION osx incorporates some iOS functionality, I seriously doubt the iMac will be touch screen. A touch screen on an iMac is impractical. A novelty at best. Why reach up to a screen for anything? It's awkward and your arm would get tired.

Even a simple gesture like being able to swipe or tap on the imac screen makes no sense.

All Apple has to do is include their new trackpad as standard with the iMacs. That is all you need if LION indeed comes with some iOS features.

It's much easier to use a trackpad than to hold your arm out in front of you to touch the computer screen. That would be awkward AND tiring.

Hey...I'm very OPEN minded. I totally embrace change when it makes sense. For instance, I personally can't wait for apple to do away with the CD/DVD drives in laptops and eventually iMacs while others aren't as willing to let them go.

But a touch screen iMac is a novelty at best to me, and certainly won't replace using a keyboard or trackpad which makes sense. Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.

Sure, I could see where it might be fun to be able to swipe your finger across the screen or Tap on a certain item to select it....lol...but why? Again, that's my opinion. Not ignorance. And saying I wouldn't use it is true. I wouldn't. Not when I could keep my hands on the desk and do it much quicker with the mouse or trackpad. I work out at the gym, I don't need to work out my arms while using my iMac. Lol.

In the words of the immortal MC Hammer.....CANT TOUCH THIS! DO DO DO DO DO DO DO DO....CANT TOUCH THIS! :-)

Why keep your arms raised in the air when they can rest them comfortably on your desk? Lol.

When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.

When you decide to read my posts instead of blindly continuing your campaign of nonsense, let me know. If you can't figure out why the quoted text is complete fallacy, try actually looking at the image in the first post again.

Dude. With all due respect, I AM LOOKING AT THE PICTURE of your retro iMac design.....and I stand by my opinion that a persons arm would get tired trying to use it as a touch screen.

It doesn't matter if the screen is vertical or horizontal....it's still raised at an awkward angle that would make using it like a giant iPad UNCOMFORTABLE.

Do you think just because you turn the screen up and flat like a table that it would make it comfortable? You'd still have to raise your arms at an uncomfortable angle to use itl in fact, I'd say it'd be even more awkward than if the screen was in it's normal position!

Again...this is just my opinion. It's not a "campaign" against yours. Lol. Stop being so sensitive. I just think it's a silly design. I am sure many agree with me. Some may like your design. I dont. Nothing personal. Just don't think it makes sense.

I seriously doubt Apple will abandon the current iMac design evolution and go back to a lampshade design. If I was a gambling man, I'd bet ya good money on it. But I'm not...so I guess were gonna have to just wait and see. :-)

OF COURSE it's at an 'awkward' angle. That would be because it's a mockup based on old parts.

For frick's sake, any desktop touchscreen solution will be at an angle between 3 and 7 degrees, maximum.

Again...it doesn't matter. Using an iMac screen for any length of time at ANY angle would be annoying. It's not an iPad that you can hold in your lap or an iPod or iPhone you can hold in your hand. Even if you could detach the screen... LOL....and lay it on the table.....WHY would you? Lol.

Seriously. I stand by my belief that tis a silly idea.

And I'd bet good money that IF.....IF apple does incorporate some touch ability to iMac screens in the future....they will be meant for very limited use compared to more traditional and comfortable methods.

I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.

But hey...this is just a future forum where we all throw out ideas and give opinions on what we think.

No biggie. I think it's cool that people make mock ups and concept designs. It's fun.

But to answer your first quote....using a keyboard or a trackpad is NOT the same thing. Both those items are FLAT on the desk, meaning your arms and or wrists are comfortably supported.

Unless you'll be able to DETACH the iMac touch screen and lay it flat on the table(which is ridiculous)....you'll HAVE to raise your arms off the table to touch the screen. Typing like this would be ridiculous let alone doing any tasks for long periods of time. So it's COMPLETELY different than using a keyboard and trackpad.

Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.

I think the current iMac form factor with the computer behind the screen and the heavy metal base will stay the same for MANY MANY years to come. It's the natural evolution of the product if you ask me. Going back to the computer in the base would be a step backwards in my opinion.

There are a couple of problems with it that lead to the design though. With everything inside the screen, you make the screen very heavy and inflexible to adjustment. You also have IO and power ports at the back, which mean you could never lay it flat.

These two things mean you either abandon the idea of using touch or you change the design. With the above design, the display and computer are not together so you can put the IO and power ports in the base, which stays fixed. The display is much lighter than even a Cinema display as the power supply is in the base, which helps counter-balance the weight.

but I suspect you'd want to use a hardware keyboard anyway while typing with the iMac. The big feature is that it lets you use iOS-type apps.

In terms of it being a step back for performance, in some way it could be but the current 65W CPUs match the old high-end i7 quads. Obviously the new ones will be faster still but it's not any slower and components will continue to get more powerful with lower power consumption.

In many ways I can see why people consider the current design the best and touch capabilities being added via a supplemental device e.g iPad or trackpad but I think the bigger the screen you can interact with directly the better. When you see some of the demos from Jeff Han (note the angled surface ), you can see how it would be a good way to use certain apps:

You're getting into troll territory now. Try using a carpenter's level on your keyboard and tell me it's "FLAT" on the desk. See that angle? The one it creates? THAT'S THE ANGLE OF THE TOUCHSCREEN. Why has it taken you so long to understand this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by now

Now having said all that.....props to you on your mock up. Although I think it'd not a practical design, you got mad Photoshop skills. Respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yesterday

This is so retarded I don't even know where to begin. Some techno geek with too much time on their hands and Photoshop created this image in their moms basement.

What baffled me back in 2002/2003 was that my TiPb screen was so slender and the iMac G4 20" floating screen was nearer the volume of two whole Powerbooks. I know there were a couple of aerials in the display and an LED but still it was relatively chunky.

But I don't see Apple going back now.

I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.

Feeling the weight of the MBA/MBP screen the arm and base would not need to be nearly so robust. So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are. Without the battery the MBA base could be slimmed down still further and would be barely any bigger than the Apple keyboard and Magic Trackpad are anyhow. The Thunderbolt and other ports would go on the back rather than sides. With slim SSDs replacing some of the battery space the speed would be kept up even with a fairly cheap processor.

I think we can assume that a touch iMac would be aimed at the casual user rather than the power that the Quad i7 offers in the high end iMacs today.

To some extent but the lower power Sandy Bridge chips perform on the same level as the current high-end iMac so they can still make high performance machines with more flexible designs. I actually think quad-core desktops (especially hyper-threaded) are the big step for desktops to hit before people stop caring about CPU performance and Apple can focus more on storage performance, GPU performance and the user experience.

There always seems to be a switching point where they change the emphasis in their products and it feels like a backward step because compromises have to be made but technology catches up. Sometimes I feel that the changes are made way too early and the compromises too great but technology catches up nonetheless.

The first iMac G3 had so many compromises vs the beige towers. Limited RAM expansion, no easy access to hard drives, slow 233MHz CPU, no GPU upgrades, no PCI, no IO beyond ethernet and USB, no DVD drive. The emphasis was on it being an appliance.

The performance and capability in that machine is outclassed and outpriced by a phone made within a decade of it, which has a motherboard barely bigger than your thumb.

Right now, the iPhone and iPad have opened up a whole new world of touch capability and it's very clear to me that this is how we should be interacting with computers for certain tasks. The trackpad and touch mouse give some movement towards this kind of capability but it's not enough because it can't match the functionality of those devices.

The obvious question is whether or not it needs to but when you see the level of ingenuity in the way information can be presented on the touch devices, there's no reason to hold that back from a more powerful platform. Why should you have to buy a $500 tablet to get interactive magazines on a 10" screen when you just spent $1000+ on a computer with a 20"+ screen that is perfectly capable of doing the same thing?

Ultimately, you resign yourself to one of two options: either you forget direct touch interaction on the iMac or you have to redesign it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrtotes

So the other option is, that like a MBA, the computer just goes in the keyboard - yeah it's a bit '80s but yet that's all the MacBooks are.

I did like that idea at one point but I don't think it would be popular. If you want to use a different keyboard, you have two keyboard foot-prints on your desk and if your keys break or you spill coffee on it, it could cause big problems. The form factor is also not too good compared to the Mini for server or media centre use. Having a single Mini-DP/TB cable can get round the peripheral issue but it would restrict movement of the keyboard. Plus, you then have two power cables and a connection cable again vs a single power cable.

I like the keyboard idea from the point of view of allowing you to have your own display but again the Mini does this and there would be little incentive to take on a touch display if the display was purely standalone. In much the same way people just wouldn't buy a 27" display unless there was a fast computer in there. Some technology has to be forced on people until they realise why it's better - one of the most important technologies that Apple has done this for is IPS display technology.

Until we had capacitive touch along with intuitive gestures, people were generally content with mobile phone keypads because when you fit yourself into a workflow and accept the constraints, you don't really see why there needs to be a change.